4 ms·

Are moving satellites in space easier to take out than a stationary antenna in Colorado?

icelancer 8y ago
Regarding collateral damage and/or political fallout? Yeah, probably.
mikeash 8y ago
Probably. Colorado has defenses. A large-scale ICBM attack would get through, but bombers or a small ICBM attack wouldn’t.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  There is no point in an ICBM attack nowadays if it is not large scale, so if it happens you can count on 99% chance that your defenses will not be effective.
  - mark-r 8y ago
    And in the event of a large-scale ICBM attack, keeping accurate time will be the least of your troubles.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Yes. I was going to make that point as well, but I guess the previous comment was kind of hyperbolic.
- dylan604 8y ago
  Huh? I just did the first step of any intelligence gathering, and looked it up on Google maps. It's an unguarded dirt road off of an FM country-style 2 lane road. It's not even blurred out, for you know, security reasons. You could practically drive right up to the transmitter/antenna, and take it out with what ever crude/rudimentary method you chose including just driving your truck into it. You could probably buy a couple of local yocals enough beer/whiskey to convince them it would be a fun thing to use the building for target practice. It's a super soft target. By the time anyone could figure out that the transmitter was offline, and then decide to actually send a crew out to investigate, the attackers could already be on a plane to wherever. ICBM attacks are something that is closely watched with early-warning satellites, and have automatic response procedures.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    That sort of attack would result in minor damage and it would be quickly fixed. To permanently destroy the transmitter would require blowing it up, and NORAD will make that difficult.
    - dylan604 8y ago
      I think you have too much faith in NORAD. Shoot, do it on Christmas, they're too busy tracking Santa. NORAD isn't going to notice a truck loaded with explosives doing the speed limit on a road that is perfectly legal for it to be on. You're over complicating the level of attack required. Think guerilla style. I've been to TV/Radio antenna farms. They are not reinforced anything. There's a pad lock on a chain securing a chain link fence gate. They are sheet metal structures around the equipment for the sole purpose of keeping the equipment out of the elements. Even if you don't take out the transmitter, taking out the antenna would also suffice. The antenna structures are super vulnerable. If a 1500' tower collapses, it takes a bit of time to get it back up once the parts&pieces have been gathered and assembled at the site. Here's a list of how non-intended accidents involving antenna structures[0], so imagine someone that intends to do harm. At this point, I'm concerned what my Google search history might lead one to suspect. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_catastrophic_collapses_of_broadcast_masts_and_towers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_catastrophic_collapses...
      - the_duke 8y ago
        If there were local agents with a truck of explosives, there would be way, way more valuable targets to attack though.
        dylan604 8y ago
        That depends entirely on the plot of the movie. If it’s a terrorist thing, then yeah it’s probably going to be a shopping mall, sporting event or similar. If it’s an opening salvo to take out “key” infrastructure clearing the way for a larger something later, then it’s perfect.
DeepYogurt 8y ago
Killing zero people versus killing x {x>1} is a very different calculus for an attacker.
yholio 8y ago
Does it matter? The attack vectors are orthogonal, requiring a linear increase of resources. For something like a clock sync source, it might not be worth it for the attacker.
justin66 8y ago
The antenna in Colorado is considerably easier to replace.

Regarding collateral damage and/or political fallout? Yeah, probably.

Probably. Colorado has defenses. A large-scale ICBM attack would get through, but bombers or a small ICBM attack wouldn’t.

ekianjo 8y ago
There is no point in an ICBM attack nowadays if it is not large scale, so if it happens you can count on 99% chance that your defenses will not be effective.
- mark-r 8y ago
  And in the event of a large-scale ICBM attack, keeping accurate time will be the least of your troubles.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Yes. I was going to make that point as well, but I guess the previous comment was kind of hyperbolic.
dylan604 8y ago
Huh? I just did the first step of any intelligence gathering, and looked it up on Google maps. It's an unguarded dirt road off of an FM country-style 2 lane road. It's not even blurred out, for you know, security reasons. You could practically drive right up to the transmitter/antenna, and take it out with what ever crude/rudimentary method you chose including just driving your truck into it. You could probably buy a couple of local yocals enough beer/whiskey to convince them it would be a fun thing to use the building for target practice. It's a super soft target. By the time anyone could figure out that the transmitter was offline, and then decide to actually send a crew out to investigate, the attackers could already be on a plane to wherever. ICBM attacks are something that is closely watched with early-warning satellites, and have automatic response procedures.
- mikeash 8y ago
  That sort of attack would result in minor damage and it would be quickly fixed. To permanently destroy the transmitter would require blowing it up, and NORAD will make that difficult.
  - dylan604 8y ago
    I think you have too much faith in NORAD. Shoot, do it on Christmas, they're too busy tracking Santa. NORAD isn't going to notice a truck loaded with explosives doing the speed limit on a road that is perfectly legal for it to be on. You're over complicating the level of attack required. Think guerilla style. I've been to TV/Radio antenna farms. They are not reinforced anything. There's a pad lock on a chain securing a chain link fence gate. They are sheet metal structures around the equipment for the sole purpose of keeping the equipment out of the elements. Even if you don't take out the transmitter, taking out the antenna would also suffice. The antenna structures are super vulnerable. If a 1500' tower collapses, it takes a bit of time to get it back up once the parts&pieces have been gathered and assembled at the site. Here's a list of how non-intended accidents involving antenna structures[0], so imagine someone that intends to do harm. At this point, I'm concerned what my Google search history might lead one to suspect. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_catastrophic_collapses_of_broadcast_masts_and_towers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_catastrophic_collapses...
    - the_duke 8y ago
      If there were local agents with a truck of explosives, there would be way, way more valuable targets to attack though.
      - dylan604 8y ago
        That depends entirely on the plot of the movie. If it’s a terrorist thing, then yeah it’s probably going to be a shopping mall, sporting event or similar. If it’s an opening salvo to take out “key” infrastructure clearing the way for a larger something later, then it’s perfect.

DeepYogurt 8y ago

Killing zero people versus killing x {x>1} is a very different calculus for an attacker.

yholio 8y ago

Does it matter? The attack vectors are orthogonal, requiring a linear increase of resources. For something like a clock sync source, it might not be worth it for the attacker.

justin66 8y ago

The antenna in Colorado is considerably easier to replace.